Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Detroit hit 3 home runs (Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk) and Datsyuk wasn't a diamond in the riugh, he was a Russian and at that time, no one thought they would come over to play. Everyone knew he was a talent.

That's not entirely true. Many NHL teams were drafting Russians in 1998, there were 2 taken in the first round and 22 taken in the draft. Datsyuk was a total diamond in the rough, it has been thought that the Red Wings were the only team to see him play prior to the draft, so I don't think other teams knew about him

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Detroit in the last 5 years has drafted way better than Calgary has. Over 10 years it's even uglier.

And Detroit has drafted significantly more man games than the Flames in the past 10 years. Since 2002 Detroit has drafted 3631 man games to Calgary's 2740, 900 more.

Even taking away their incredible 2002 draft, Detroit since 2003 has 1993 man games to Calgary's 1747. (500 of those are Phaneuf)

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So are we gradually agreeing that there is one basic strategy available? That we need to accumulate draft picks over multiple years to draft a new core?

I would look at it as a success factor. Along with things like:
- # of high 1st round picks (say top 5?)
- % of hitting on picks
- Use of cap space
- Success in attracting free agents for good prices
- and a lot of other stuff

You need to be a good at least a few of those things for sure. The Flames haven't been good at much in the last, oh, 20 years.

Part of it is a vicious cycle too. I maintain the Flames' biggest challenge for the better part of the last 20 years is an overall lack of quality assets to work with across the entire organization - players, prospects and draft picks. They just have never had enough "stuff" to work with.

[Tinordi]

That's another good point, what's the relative success factor of high picks, hitting picks, UFA attraction, etc.

I would argue, just anecdotally, that drafting your core is essential to cup contention. And that the only way to do that is with lots of first, second, third round picks over multiple years and with a certain percentage of those being high first round picks.

If that's necessary to be successful, what does that mean for teh strategy? How do you accumulate multiple high round picks over multiple years and how to do pick high in the first round...

You trade off short term success for long term success. You get worse before you get better.

High time the fanbase and management wake up to this.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The way the multiple draft picks are acquired had to factor in too. It's one thing to always trade back in the first round and get an extra pick. It's another to trade veterans for picks at the deadline.

I think Nashville had 3 or 4 second round picks in 2003, and Kevin Klein and Weber were both picked after Konstantin Pushkarev. So even teams who are good at drafting did need to have multiple swings to knock one out of the park.

You know, kind of OT, but I watched a whole ton of Hitmen games during the lockout. I'm honestly not sure how a scout could have signed off on this guy with a straight face.

He had plenty of skill, but I've seen Novice players with better hockey sense and decision making than this guy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

And Detroit has drafted significantly more man games than the Flames in the past 10 years. Since 2002 Detroit has drafted 3631 man games to Calgary's 2740, 900 more.

Even taking away their incredible 2002 draft, Detroit since 2003 has 1993 man games to Calgary's 1747. (500 of those are Phaneuf)

I fully agree that Calgary's record is horrible - comparing Detroit to Calgary is going to make almost any team look good.

The issue was whether they have done better than most.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I fully agree that Calgary's record is horrible - comparing Detroit to Calgary is going to make almost any team look good.

The issue was whether they have done better than most.

I can go home tonight and pull a list of the top 3-5 players have each organization has drafted since 1998.

You're going to see names in Calgary like Kobasew, Phaneuf and Lombardi making that list.

Then you're going look at Vancouver and see names like Bieksa, Sedin, Sedin, Elder, Schneider and Kelser.

It is going to be a massacre.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I can go home tonight and pull a list of the top 3-5 players have each organization has drafted since 1998.

You're going to see names in Calgary like Kobasew, Phaneuf and Lombardi making that list.

Then you're going look at Vancouver and see names like Bieksa, Sedin, Sedin, Elder, Schneider and Kelser.

It is going to be a massacre.

I think you mis-read my post. I agree that Calgary's record is horrid. The issue is whether Detroit's is better than most or whether they get ongoing credit for a couple of home runs.

[Badgers Nose]

also: rebuild and business as usual is the same thing whether you want to admit it or not.

IMO this team is bottom five in the NHL with or without Iggy. Highly likely that he'll fetch only Stajan/Leeman calibre players and mid tier picks. So keep him.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So are we gradually agreeing that there is one basic strategy available? That we need to accumulate draft picks over multiple years to draft a new core?

If you are Feaster, you don't have to lift a finger to get those high picks. That is the current trajectory.

So why trade guys like Iggy that sell seats and who will help you launch your shiny new area? Unless Iggy has told the team he does not want to re-sign, why move him? He won't get fetch much even at the trade deadline.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I would look at it as a success factor. Along with things like:
- # of high 1st round picks (say top 5?)
- % of hitting on picks
- Use of cap space
- Success in attracting free agents for good prices
- and a lot of other stuff

You need to be a good at least a few of those things for sure. The Flames haven't been good at much in the last, oh, 20 years.

Part of it is a vicious cycle too. I maintain the Flames' biggest challenge for the better part of the last 20 years is an overall lack of quality assets to work with across the entire organization - players, prospects and draft picks. They just have never had enough "stuff" to work with.

Yeah, the 90's firesale killed the pool.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

And Detroit has drafted significantly more man games than the Flames in the past 10 years. Since 2002 Detroit has drafted 3631 man games to Calgary's 2740, 900 more.

Even taking away their incredible 2002 draft, Detroit since 2003 has 1993 man games to Calgary's 1747. (500 of those are Phaneuf)

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I fully agree that Calgary's record is horrible - comparing Detroit to Calgary is going to make almost any team look good.

The issue was whether they have done better than most.

Assuming Tinordi's numbers are correct, the man games per team are as follows since the 2003 draft:

1) Montreal - 4494
2) San Jose - 4246
3) Chicago - 4213
4) Columbus - 4050
5) Boston - 4029
6)Buffalo - 3888
7)Pittsburgh - 3861
8) Anaheim - 3685
9) Nashville - 3614
10) LA - 3603
11) New York Islanders - 3522
12) Edmonton - 3499
13) Washington - 3499
14) Colorado - 3400
15) St. Louis - 3387
16) Philly - 3362
17) New York Rangers - 3202
18)Florida - 3035
19)Phoenix - 2836
20)Dallas - 2808
21) Ottawa - 2800
22) Minnesota - 2734
23) Carolina - 2699
24) Winnipeg - 2317
25) Vancouver - 2304
26) Toronto- 2304
27) New Jersey - 2218
28) Detroit - 1993
29) Calgary - 1747
30) Tampa Bay - 1710

Those are the standings by games played by drafted players since the 2003 draft for what it is worth, the Flames are ever so slightly better than the Tampa Bay Lightning.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

If you are Feaster, you don't have to lift a finger to get those high picks. That is the current trajectory.

So why trade guys like Iggy that sell seats and who will help you launch your shiny new area? Unless Iggy has told the team he does not want to re-sign, why move him? He won't get fetch much even at the trade deadline.

Because the only way you can accumulate picks is to trade your assets.....

[Enoch Root]

And with respect to the Flames, I am pretty confident that they were probably among the worst in the prior 10 years as well.

Things will ebb and flow over time, but the Flames' draft record has been horrible.

And IMO, that is the source of all of their other issues.

But with respect to Detroit, I think that is pretty clear evidence that their reputation is a bit long in the tooth.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And with respect to the Flames, I am pretty confident that they were probably among the worst in the prior 10 years as well.

This will ebb and flow over time, but the Flames' draft record has been horrible.

And IMO, that is the source of all over issues.

But with respect to Detroit, I think that is pretty clear evidence that their reputation is a bit long in the tooth.

The only constant since 1997 has been Tod Button......

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I maintain the Flames' biggest challenge for the better part of the last 20 years is an overall lack of quality assets to work with across the entire organization - players, prospects and draft picks. They just have never had enough "stuff" to work with.

Dunno, 2004 to 2007 or so Flames had a lot of assets. Iginla, Kipper, Leopold, Regehr, Lydman, Conroy. When Leopold fetches you in-his-prime Tanguay, you can tell you have some assets to work with. Support players Saprykin and Gauthier had enough value to bring back Langkow. And I didn't even mention Phaneuf on his ELC.

[Red Slinger]

I hate the term "rebuild". If a team is willingly in a "rebuilding" mode that implies that they really screwed up and the current roster that was put together has no hope for any success now or in the future. Usually we only see this when one GM takes over a terrible team from a fired GM. I expect something like this to happen in Columbus where over the next 3 years there will likely be a very large roster turnover. The last GM already started it with Nash.

Successful franchises don't rebuild (ie. burn it down and start all over). Successful franchises are good at asset management and, as a result, don't have to rebuild.

Obviously, that leads to the question "are the Flames at the stage where they have to rebuild" (get rid of all tradeable assets) or are we really talking about asset management? I think trading Iginla and Kiprusoff (which is what people are usually talking about when they use the term "rebuild") isn't burning it to the ground and starting over. Rather, it's trying to get something for a depreciating asset before it becomes worthless. Maybe it's just semantics but I think a real rebuild (eg. Florida Marlins style) is pretty rare.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Dunno, 2004 to 2007 or so Flames had a lot of assets. Iginla, Kipper, Leopold, Regehr, Lydman, Conroy. When Leopold fetches you in-his-prime Tanguay, you can tell you have some assets to work with. Support players Saprykin and Gauthier had enough value to bring back Langkow. And I didn't even mention Phaneuf on his ELC.

In essence all teams have the same basic assets over time, draft picks and money, what they do with them determines what 'stuff' they end up with.
The Flames under Sutter were casual with draft picks.

[GGG]

The problem with looking at what stanley cup winning teams did to win is that someone has to win the cup every year. If I flip a coin enough times eventually it will come up heads 10 times in a row. So of all the teams trading away players to get picks some by simple luck will draft great players. This doesnt mean the strategy is sound.

I much perfer a moneyball approach, rather than just to what everyone else does find value. What types of players are currently undervalued based on their contribution to winning. Sign those types of players. Are draft picks overvalued right now? Are Centermen overpriced for the value they bring in? Does it make sense to have an elite goalie or is spending less on a goalie better. If as we have seen teams both good and bad trade vets for picks does that show its a good strategy?

I think one problem with the flames the last 3 years is hat we have been close, generally the teams around us in the standings have behaved the same way so it isnt that we arent rebuilding, its that we arent bad enough to rebuild. Its easy to trade away vets at the deadline if you arent in a playoff race.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I fully agree that Calgary's record is horrible - comparing Detroit to Calgary is going to make almost any team look good.

The issue was whether they have done better than most.

Detroit has drafted off the top of my head:
Hudler, filpulla, ericcson,samuelsson, Tatar, leino, matthias, Howard, helm, jiri Fischer, nyquist, kronwall, smith.

Calgary
Phaneuf, Brodie Lombardi, nystrom, bouma, and not much else... Although I am sure I am missing a couple names.